This sort of attitude-- "liberals who want their marijuana"-- mocks the suffering of people that use cannabis for bona fide medical reasons.

Here are the facts of my case: I have a neurological disorder like Tourette's Syndrome, without the vocal tics. I cannot hold a glass of water. I cannot do anything that requires the least bit of dexterity. I can't live a normal life...

Except when I am using medical marijuana. I have tried all other medicines and it is the only thing that works. Only cannabis alleviates my symptoms more than slightly. It makes it possible for me to live a normal life and do thinks that folks like you take for granted.

So this is the situation I'm in: I have to fight against this bigoted hateful attitude.

I have to fight for my right to live a normal life.

Most mainstream conservatives are pursuing a political program that requires that I suffer and live like a "gimp" (as I was called all the time as a child!), or else go to jail, or else leave the country. With only a slight dose of hyperbole, you could say that mainstream conservatives don't want people like me to exist. They want to take my life away.

At least with Obama you know where you stand. I'll stick with that rather than vote for a candidate and a political party who all hate people like me.

Don't know. When I meet libertarians, however, they tend to start talking about marijuana about 50% of the time. I think there are probably as many conservatives who are libertarians who want marijuana.

".. I think there are probably as many conservatives who are libertarians who want marijuana..."

I have no problem decriminaluzing pot. I just don't want to hear the pissing and moaning about how its destroying lives, contributing to poverty and we need government funding to help those who succumb to being high all the time.

Life is about choices and you need to be responsible for those. Liberals love choice and demand everyone bail out those who choose poorly.

Want to clarify that? Is Obama a pro medical marajuana guy or is he opposed to it like 'mainstream conservatives' but still feels your pain?

I know Obama's position. His administration has cracked down on larger-scale commercial medical marijuana operations. These actions have not, however, significantly impacted the ability for bona fide medical marijuana patients to get their medicine.

Contrast: I don't know Romney's position. Candidate #2 previously suggested summary executions for marijuana distributors, and the Republican Party (sans Ron Paul) constantly agitates to limit public freedom in this regard. So what will Romney eventually do? Who knows?!

I would love to vote for a Republican. I prefer a conservative and extremely limited government with low taxes. But, as a medical marijuana patient and Ron Paul supporter, it seems as if the Republican party views people like me as a cancer on its rolls.

Why are we (medical marijuana patients, Ron Paul supports) turned away by the Republicans? How much do you have to hate someone to say that their political support is not wanted? Isn't the act of rejecting such support a way of saying that the potential supporters are less than full participants in our political system?

I, and the many people in a similar situation, will vote for and support Republican candidates when the Republican party actually wants my vote. If that doesn't happen this year, then Obama will win re-election easily.

The first problem with this question is self-identifying libertarians. As soon as you let people identify themselves, you've screwed this up.

For people who are actually libertarians, that answer is none. Libertarians believe that each person owns their own body and can decide for themselves what to do with it, and bear the responsibility. This is so far from the liberal outlook on everything, there is no comparison.

Why do liberals who want "their" pot have to say they are libertarians?

Dead Julius, for someone who's practically an invalid you certainly have a way with a keyboard, Of course I suppose you might be self medicating right now, but I've never heard anyone who's stoned speak with such clarity. I'm glad to see you at least have the ability to fight for your right to stay stoned

You can't have a libertarian drug policy without a libertarian welfare policy.I'd be in favor of mandatory drug tests for those on government assistance, and if you're dirty, you lose that assistance, in exchange for drug legalization.

I have to agree with Greg Gutfeld. On last night's Red Eye he made the point that marijuana would be legalized in a heartbeat if potheads would just STFU about their weed and stop showing up at rallies acting like little d-bags.

I think medical marijuana proponents would have an easier time making their case if it wasn't such a joke in the places where medical marijuana use is legal.

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, and get medical marijuana under the jurisdiction of the FDA, and, most importantly, get the moronic little potheads out of the equation.

"... His administration has cracked down on larger-scale commercial medical marijuana operations. These actions have not, however, significantly impacted the ability for bona fide medical marijuana patients to get their medicine..."

Interesting. It would appear that somehow marajuana is not subject to the laws of supply and demand. Then again Obamas administration isn't doing much different in combatting pot than previous ones. Big operations have always been the targets, not the OWS protestor hitting the bong between Eat the Rich group chants.

Julius, you don't really sound like you want a conservative to vote for. Heck, in a previous post you lamented the downfall of America because some artist ended up with $200 million because he accepted Facebook shares instead of regular payment. Only a liberal or a socialist would have a problem with that.

I'm not mocking anyone's desire for marijuana, whatever your reason is. That's not the point here. The issue is whether the enthusiasm for Paul and the seeming popularity of "libertarianism" boils down to one thing: marijuana.

I think it confuses GOP politics to have these one-issue people who are NOT going to vote for conservatives shaping the issues. These people are going to vote for Obama and other Democrats, but they are agitating for their issue amongst Republicans.

Medical marijuana users... indeed, marijuana users in general... are people too, not subhumans or animals.

Why is there the general assumption that pot users are lazy or non-productive?

If I use medical marijuana, I am somewhat intoxicated for a couple of hours two days per week. That lost (but enjoyable!) time is more than made up by the productivity gains realized by not having to constantly deal with the effects of a debilitating disability. I am never "stoned".

19-year-olds who use pot for fun are probably lazy. But that's because they are young and lazy, not because they use pot.

And there are pot users of all achievement levels, rich and poor. You only read about the poor criminal ones in the news because the other ones don't get in the news.

I think there is intense bigotry behind this stereotyping, especially when dealing with medical marijuana users. Where else in our society do we allow such a prejudicial attitude to take hold? I can't think of anywhere else...

You use the tag "things are not what they seem." If someone actually just wants to smoke marijuana (not because of an illness but just for fun), and this person objects to the fact that the government is stopping them from doing what they want to do, and this person reflects on the issue and decides that the infringement of liberty is a seriously bad thing, and the person ends up saying "I'm a libertarian," is that really not-what-it-seems? I realize that marijuana is only one issue. But is it any different from someone saying "I'm a liberal" mainly because they support active government involvement in health insurance, or someone saying "I'm a conservative" mainly because they support low taxes? Most people don't think through every issue, yet they still put ideological labels on themselves. Is that not-what-it-seems, or does that just mean that people have their own personal ways of prioritizing the issues?

Nobody believes me when I say this, but I am a registered Republican. I supported and campaigned for and voted for a Republican Congressperson in 2010 to replace the incumbent Democrat. I speak with this Congressperson's legislative assistant once or twice a week about Internet issues, and I find that I usually agree with the Republican position.

Even on your blog, I encouraged people to vote for Scott Brown over his evil bitch of an opponent to replace Ted Kennedy. And I encouraged the voting down of

In the primary, I will vote for Ron Paul.

I am very dissatisfied with Obama. I didn't want to vote for him, and would have loved an alternative, but Romney ain't it.

Romney could be it but he will need to make a grand inclusive embrace of the libertarian, Ron Paulite faction of the Republican Party. It will cost Romney some far-right war-mongering good will, but it will allow Romney to win the election.

Or Romney selects a Paul as his running mate.

Either one of those things happens and I will vote for Romney. And I'll campaign for him in my own special way! But I ain't holding my breath...

I think most true libertarians don't give a rip about marijuana, unlike "flag-of-convenience" potheads who see libertarianism as the path to what they really want.

Even though I'm a '49er I've never had a single toke in my life. What matters to me is general economic and social libertariansim.

I should not have to get a permit from my county in order to sell fruits and veggies on my own farm. Nor should I have to get a federal permit to sell a cabbage to a grocery store. And I certainly should not have the federal Department of Labor saying that my children are not allowed to drive a tractor or do any other significant work on our farm until they're sixteen.

I should not have the EPA claiming the right to regulate how much dust I "release" when working my fields or even driving on gravel roads. I should not have government trying to force me to purchase products and services they believe I should purchase -- like fluorescent light bulbs or medical insurance.

Should it really be a violation of California law to put out a pan of stale beer to trap slugs? It is.

The essence of libertarianism is that excess government -- of which we have plenty -- is expensive, counter-productive, inefficient, and intrusive into what by right ought to be freely chosen economic and social interactions between consenting adults.

All that said (and there could have been lots more) decriminalization of most drugs, for the true libertarians, is but one logical component of a much broader issue: the role, style, and magnitude of government.

If people are, by nature, good, then government should be limited because it is not needed.

If people are, by nature, evil, then government should be limited not only because it is incapable of making evil people good, but also because evil people will actively seek out the power and control over others available when government is grandiose.

Dead Julius, I appreciate what you're saying, but maybe if I didn't encounter a couple dozen rude-ass pot smokers every time I leave my apartment, I wouldn't be so "prejudiced".

Clean up your own house. If you want to be taken seriously, get rid of the unwashed, skateboard-riding thirty-somethings who just don't want to grow up. If that's what the public sees, what do you expect them to think? They don't see medical marijuana users who follow the rules. They see the little punks hanging out on the street smoking weed all day.

Plus, it's the hypocrisy people like me witness every day: people openly smoking marijuana on their lunch breaks, on the sidewalk in spite of anti-smoking laws that would ban a cigarette smoker from doing the same thing.

Ugh, and then the grubby little beasts walk three and four abreast down the sidewalk, or skateboard on busy sidewalks, reeking of weed, making it impossible for anyone to get around them.

I'm for legalization, but I'm never going to respect some riduclous thirty-something man-boy who rides his skateboard to "work" while smoking a joint and knocking everyone else off the sidewalk.

Get rid of those edjits and maybe people will take you seriously. Otherwise, those asshats are the face of the legalize marijuana movement.

"The issue is whether the enthusiasm for Paul and the seeming popularity of "libertarianism" boils down to one thing: marijuana."

Single-issue voters are a reality. I think you have identified just *one* of several possible reasons why a libertarian might vote for the democrat. I would point out that GOP/Rino politics in many ways resembles democrat politics, or at least, identifies the capitulation of the GOP in order to 'get along'.

How it all gets ironed out? I don't know, what happened to the 'No Labels' group???

I voted “Maybe 20-50%.” The reason being is that the question defined “libertarians” as “Americans who call themselves "libertarian" or who say they like Ron Paul” which is not necessarily the same as being an actual “libertarian.”

In the first group of ““Americans who call themselves "libertarian,”” pretty much anybody can identify themselves as whatever they want and for a while it was chic in some circles (especially college) to say you were one. A lot of people identified themselves as such merely because they either opposed the war or wanted to legalize drugs but it was pretty clear that also they wanted the government to exercise greater control over the economy and keep their benefits flowing.

As far as Ron Paul supporters, I haven’t seen him spend much time talking about plans for dismantling the Nanny State so much as he has condemning America for our supposed “imperialism.” That focus and rhetoric is likely to attract a more liberal crowd and I wouldn’t be surprised to find that a disproportionate number of his supporters skew pretty far to the left.

I can't generalize to the entire libertarian population of the country, but in my 20 years of membership in the Maryland Libertarian Party more time has been spent talking about gun laws, education reform, and state budget matters than drug laws.

"I think it confuses GOP politics to have these one-issue people who are NOT going to vote for conservatives shaping the issues."

This makes no sense. **You don't have to vote for a small government republican to be pro-pot.** Potheads are not leaping over to vote for a republican based upon that one issue.

You also presuppose that "conservatives shaping the issues" means Big Government Conservatives and Loony Social Conservatives. We could debate for days what a "true conservative" is. Paul meets my definition.

FWIW, as I've said before, The Blonde (or any other good nurse) will tell you the same effect can be gained form administering other medications IV-push, so the whole "medical marijuana" thing is a scam anyway.

"... Why is there the general assumption that pot users are lazy or non-productive?.."

Personal experience. When I'm stoned, nothing gets done. YMMV.

My problem with legalization is that we already have enough trouble with legal alchohol. And I don't see the technology out there yet to determine if you are "under the influence" at a traffic stop. They can't detect if the pot in your system is from last night or 15 mins ago.

I think it confuses GOP politics to have these one-issue people who are NOT going to vote for conservatives shaping the issues. These people are going to vote for Obama and other Democrats, but they are agitating for their issue amongst Republicans.

I don't think this is the case. But, even if it were, what's wrong with it? Why shouldn't people who want to participate in the political process try to gain the support of both parties? Major interest groups do. So why shouldn't regular citizens? Or do we real in-the-flesh people have less rights than fictional corporate people?

It seems to me that Althouse is saying "toe the Republican line or shut the fuck up". That's a frightening attitude for someone who purports to support free speech.

"My problem with legalization is that we already have enough trouble with legal alchohol. And I don't see the technology out there yet to determine if you are "under the influence" at a traffic stop. They can't detect if the pot in your system is from last night or 15 mins ago."

First, pot is available in huge quantities all over America. So I would say we have a lot of problems with it being illegal. So I don't see how any of the problems you cite are not already occurring.

Second, the science shows that stoned drivers are actually less dangerous than drunk ones. Stoned drivers don't lose their sense of judgment like drunk ones do and thus are much less likely to engaging in speeding and the type of risky activities that get people killed.

Third, I really don't see how you can consider alcohol safer than POT. Alcohol literally will kill you. You drink enough of it at one time and you die. Drink enough of it over a long period of time and you will die. Contrast lifetime drinkers like Richard Burton who never saw 70 with lifetime pot smokers like Willie Nelson, who is in his 70s and going strong, and you will see what I mean. If legal pot meant fewer people drinking, we would probably have a healthier and less violent society.

In the end, we just have to get out of the business of telling other people how to live. I am not a drug user. I am a former prosecutor who used to put people in jail for drugs. But, I am tired of my tax money going to save people from themselves. And I am tired of the debilitating effects on my civil liberties that this ridiculous and impractical idea that it is the government's job to regulate everyone's behavior and what they put into their bodies is having.

"Clean up your own house. If you want to be taken seriously, get rid of the unwashed, skateboard-riding thirty-somethings who just don't want to grow up. If that's what the public sees, what do you expect them to think? They don't see medical marijuana users who follow the rules. They see the little punks hanging out on the street smoking weed all day. "

IF that guy is paying his own way, what do you care if he is 35 and wont' grow up? That is his problem not yours.

At some point you need to grow up and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing. I imagine a lot of people find you obnoxious. Should we call the law out on you? Should we deny you what you enjoy doing because the rest of us don't like it?

I would love to get rid of the noxious Prius drivers in the world. But I really don't think I have the right to demand the government ban them for me.

FWIW, as I've said before, The Blonde (or any other good nurse) will tell you the same effect can be gained form administering other medications IV-push, so the whole "medical marijuana" thing is a scam anyway.

Yeah, 5mg of clonazepam administered intravenously works for me too. But that's more than a whole day's dose in one shot. I've done that for dental work in the past. I would sleep for 12-16 hours afterwards, and any alleviation of my symptoms wears off in 24 hours. The next day my usual symptoms rebound and are far worse.

Taking something like this on a regular basis will kill you. Your Blonde is dangerous!

Perhaps one sign is that all the racists in his district return him by ever increasing majorities. Clost to 80% last time. Oh, wait, 25-30% is minority.

Or maybe it is those racist newsletters. Do you know what they actually said? You could look it up.

Some of what the articles said are factual and easily checkable. eg; Blacks commit crimes out of proportion to their population. Or blacks vote stupidly because they keep electing Demmies who do them no good at all.

Those have been presented as some of the more egregious racist comments in the newsletters.

Perhaps you have some more evidence to support your claims that he is racist?

Or are you just going to be a dick saying "Neener, neener racist racist, racist"

A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A libertarian is a liberal who's been inconvenienced.

Ron Paul supporters are against government waging drug and foreign wars. Of course also against government covering up 911. Otherwise, they're fine with the government.They want to smoke their weed and rage against imperialist aggression and engage in conspiracy theories.

I'm saying that, as long as the immature little potheads are the public face of the legalize marijuana movement, legalization of marijuana doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell. It is up to the proponents of legalized/medical marijuana to distance themselves from these little twerps, perhaps even publicly denounce them.

And when people are breaking the law and obstructing public walkways, yeah, I have a right to ask that they get their little asses kicked the hell off my sidewalk.

I don't care what anyone thinks about me, but then I also mind my own business, know how to behave in public, and don't make a nuisance of myself in public spaces.

That is the dumbest post I have ever read. Just because you are against the drug war doesn't mean you are drug user. It just means that you understand that if it is okay for the government to tell you you can't smoke pot, it is okay for it to tell you a lot of other things. It also means that you understand that if you expect the government to act for your favorite good idea, you don't have much standing when you object to everyone else wanting the same thing.

I am not Paul supporter. But I find his supporters to be far more intelligent and thoughtful than any of his critics left or right.

My problem with legalization is that we already have enough trouble with legal alchohol. And I don't see the technology out there yet to determine if you are "under the influence" at a traffic stop. They can't detect if the pot in your system is from last night or 15 mins ago.

Is there any evidence, like studies or such, that show that pot smoking impairs driving ability?

There are at least 3 studies that I have read, done by the US Dept of Transportation that showed no driving impairment.

There is one I have not seen but have read of by the Australian govt showing the same thing.

Most of those studies involved having someone smoke a bit of pot, drive an obstacle course, smoke some more, dive the course and so on.

So are there any studies of the dangers of driving stoned? Or is it just "common sense" that it would?

All the same, when I Google "medical marijuana varieties" and the first site that comes up lists strains with names like Kandy Kush, Pink Lady, Blue Dream, and Super Silver Haze (that is but a sampling of the first of 66 pages, by the way) ... well, it's difficult to believe that either the growers or their customers are thinking of this primarily as medicine.

No, it's not "my" sidewalk. It's a public sidewalk. You're correct. Obviously people with actual lives and who have responsibilities can't call the police every time they're forced into the street by these wasted little losers, so we end up being inconvenienced.

As usual, the whiny, immature, selfish, obnoxious do-nothings get their way because the grown-ups don't have time to deal with their selfish, loser antics.

Whatever.

But the reason I and others I know are intellectually for legalization of marijuana yet vote against it here in SF is because of those d-bags. Most of us don't want to smoke weed. Makes no-nevermind to us in the long run whether it's legal or not. If you want us on your side, you need better PR. Right now, your PR is those d-bags. Fix your PR problem and you might get better results.

Julius, I'm sorry that the government interferes with your ability to alleviate your problems. It shouldn't.

when I Google "medical marijuana varieties" and the first site that comes up lists strains with names like Kandy Kush, Pink Lady, Blue Dream, and Super Silver Haze

instead of therapeutic-sounding names like "Activia", "Zoloft", or "Preparation H", then I am justified in concluding that the former items have no medical value. Why, I bet they don't even come in child-resistant bottles with a wad of cotton stuffed in the neck! How can you have a medicine that doesn't come in a child-resistant bottle with a wad of cotton stuffed in the neck?

They make perfect sense to me. But then a leader emerges to a Libertarian Party and my interested is perked and it's like a ride on a wooden roller coaster. Continuously. For as long as the days last. Which is fun but not the sort of structure I'd want to model a government. Would you? And honestly now, at this level, your wardrobe does say a lot about you.

Then I'm back to liking them as individuals and back to them making sense.

Somehow the Libertarians as a group do not match the summation of Libertarian individuals and I find that puzzling. Another group I cannot be in. See? I keep trying to fit into a group and I keep failing.

The issue is whether the enthusiasm for Paul and the seeming popularity of "libertarianism" boils down to one thing: marijuana.

Is this the crux of it? Seriously?! Ron Paul supporters generally doesn't know what they will be voting for?!

Au contraire! I'd say that Ron Paul supporters know more about their candidate and his political position than supporters of any other candidate do. They generally know the libertarian philosophy and are familiar with its history, or at least Ayn Rand and Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Libertarians know that Paul focuses on the basic principles that the others refuse to examine. They know that when the History books are written, Paul will be remembered as a shining lite of virtue and peace in a politically violent world, just as Cato the Younger is remembered two millennia on.

To think that Ron Paul supporters think "marijuana" and then stop is degrading. Even proposing the notion is degrading.

Read ZeroHedge for instance. They are libertarian. They are Ron Paul supporters. And they also have the most accurate, most well-thought-out, most experienced, most in-the-trenches view of the world's financial situation. I cannot recall them ever mentioning marijuana. And Althouse-- you've linked to ZeroHedge many times in the past! You should know this as an obvious counter-example to your theory... Or are you being intentionally idiotic?

Wouldn't it be offensive for me to say to a Romney supporter that he or she is just voting for perpetual war out of a love of violence at a visceral level... and that the supporter doesn't think any more than that about his or her chosen candidate?

Surely the Romney supporter would find that to be an inaccurate, even plainly stupid, description of his or her views!

Somehow, though, the Paul supporters are fair game. They are treated as lesser Rebpublicans, eyed suspiciously and then disregarded.

My problem with legalization is that we already have enough trouble with legal alchohol.

And while you're pondering that, poor countries in Central and South America are, one-after-another, being torn apart by drug gangs. Over 30,000 have been killed in Mexico alone.

And despite all that, and despite the hundreds of thousands of American jailed, the billions wasted, the infringement on our civil liberties with drug-testing and dog-shooting, no-knock, middle-of-the-night SWAT raids -- despite ALL of that, drug remain plentiful.

First, pot is available in huge quantities all over America. So I would say we have a lot of problems with it being illegal. So I don't see how any of the problems you cite are not already occurring.

Those problems will *increase* if its made legal. Consumption will increase.

Second, the science shows that stoned drivers are actually less dangerous than drunk ones. Stoned drivers don't lose their sense of judgment like drunk ones do and thus are much less likely to engaging in speeding and the type of risky activities that get people killed.

I don't trust that "science". My own personal experience is that it dulls my reflexes and reaction times in traffic. So much so that I learned to wait at least one hour before driving.

And again, my main point that you have ignored - there isn't a way to test for driving under the infuence, the policeman who stops me for erratic driving can't tell if the pot in my system is from last night or 15 mins ago. There has to be a way to test for that (in the workplace and on the road before it can be made legal.

Third, I really don't see how you can consider alcohol safer than POT.

I never said such a thing. Alcohol is more dangerous than weed. My point was that we already legalized one drug, and look how much trouble we've have with drunk driving. And you want to legalize *another* one?

There is more than one way to be virtuous in public life. Here's Sallust (86 - 35 BC) using Julius Caesar and Cato the Younger to explain that notion to you, Althouse:

But within my own memory there have appeared two men of towering merit, though of diverse character, Marcus Cato and Gaius Caesar. As regards these men, since the occasion has presented itself, it is not my intention to pass them by in silence, or fail to give, to the best of my ability, an account of their disposition and character. In birth then, in years and in eloquence, they were about equal; in greatness of soul they were evenly matched, and likewise in renown, although the renown of each was different.

Caesar was held great because of his benefactions and lavish generosity, Cato for the uprightness of his life. The former became famous for his gentleness and compassion, the austerity of the latter had brought him prestige. Caesar gained glory by giving, helping, and forgiving; Cato by never stooping to bribery. One was a refuge for the unfortunate, the other a scourge for the wicked. The good nature of the one was applauded, the steadfastness of the other. Finally, Caesar had schooled himself to work hard and sleep little, to devote himself to the welfare of his friends and neglect his own, to refuse nothing which was worth the giving. He longed for great power, an army, a new war to give scope for his brilliant merit. Cato, on the contrary, cultivated self-control, propriety, but above all austerity. He did not vie with the rich in riches nor in intrigue with the intriguer, but with the active in good works, with the self-restrained in moderation, with the blameless in integrity. He preferred to be, rather than to seem, virtuous; hence the less he sought fame, the more it pursued him.

So why can't Romney be the Caesar and Paul be the Cato, this time working together for the good of the country? Surely Romney wants the libertarian faction of his party behind him... doesn't he?

Or have the intelligensia of the Republican Party-- Althouse included-- so instilled the winner-takes-all anti-cooperation notion into the rank-and-file that working together to build a competitive party with a competitive candidate and an inclusive platform is quaint and old-fashioned?

Honestly I'm with Dead Julius on this one. It's easy to vote for conservative purity when you're fully abled. I'd love to see some fire-breathing Republican drug warrior's son stricken down with a disability requiring medical pot. That would be sweet justice.

Why, I bet they don't even come in child-resistant bottles with a wad of cotton stuffed in the neck! How can you have a medicine that doesn't come in a child-resistant bottle with a wad of cotton stuffed in the neck?

In all seriousness, I would say that medical marijuana, like all other prescription medications, ought to be stored so that your children cannot get at it.

But you see my point, right? I'd guess that the only reason there aren't strains called "Ecstasy" and "Angel Dust" is that those names were already taken ;-)

If the MM folks want other people to think of marijuana as medicine, they ought to market it as though it were medicine. That needn't mean packaging in a little bottle with cotton in it, or giving it some idiotic made-up pharmaceutical name (wv: prevoyol -- yeah, like that!), but naming strains for something other than what their growers saw the first time they tripped out on them would be helpful in convincing people that this isn't all one big ruse to get as many stoners all the weed they want.

So what if stoners want all the weed they want - why are Republican fascists so desperate to stop it? Let's not pretend that this is about medical pot - this is about freedom of people like me to have pleasure.

And again, my main point that you have ignored - there isn't a way to test for driving under the infuence, the policeman who stops me for erratic driving can't tell if the pot in my system is from last night or 15 mins ago.

ISTR that it's worse than that. THC is fat-soluble, and therefore it hangs around a long time. One can fail a drug test for pot as long as a month after smoking it, as a lot of public transit drivers and other mandatory-drug-test workers have found to their cost.

If it weren't for Ron Paul, it would be "conservatives who smoke pot." But Ron's isolationist, anti-Israel foreign policy, kneejerk criticism of police, and openness to conspiracy theories brought a lot of far left types into his fold. I said 20-50%.

Alex: So what if stoners want all the weed they want - why are Republican fascists so desperate to stop it? Let's not pretend that this is about medical pot - this is about freedom of people like me to have pleasure.

Alex, a qualifier for this topic is some minute knowledge re the Prohibition era.

You're in the wrong class. Come back when you have the prereqs down. And please pick up Rhetorical Fallacy 101 during your Remedials.

Where did I say that all those opposed to the drug war are drug users? Right. I didn't.I hope you're a drug user though because there's no other good excuse for your lack of logic.ALSOI don't care one way or the other about legalization. Smoke your own shit, I don't care. I DO care about the inevitable increased state intervention and compulsion that will accompany legalization. The state will assert its interest in regulating sales, ostensibly for health and safety purposes but really for tax purposes and all purpose bureaucratic expansion. Also, having developed a new source of revenue, the state will be much more interested in deterrence of, er, alternative markets. So the drug war will rage on and on. At your expense. And I still think it much more likely than not y'all will be paying a much higher price for your high following legalization.

If the government should regulate anything about marijuana it's the contents. They should primarily be concerned with the user's safety it seems to me.

And its efficacy. Make marijuana growers and dispensaries adhere to the same strict protocols other drug makers have to. If a producer wants to make medical claims, then let them invest in the testing and trials and seek FDA approval like everyone else.

Chip Ahoy wrote: They make perfect sense to me. But then a leader emerges to a Libertarian Party and my interested is perked and it's like a ride on a wooden roller coaster. Continuously. For as long as the days last. Which is fun but not the sort of structure I'd want to model a government.

Brilliant metaphor. Should be an animation. Ever ride the Cyclone at Coney Island? It's terrifying. It's built out of wood and has such a small footprint that you can't actually see the whipneck turns before they hit you.

I do think the metaphor applies to any purist theory that ignores human nature and cultural history.

Dead Julius -- Thanks for the quotes from Sallust. One thing that I love about history is the way the assumptions cut against ours. He longed for great power, an army, a new war to give scope for his brilliant merit. Sallust treats this as rational behavior. That forces some thinking.

I can't remember who it was, but I read some classicist who really disliked Cato the Younger. A moral scold is still a scold.

Let's not pretend that this is about medical pot - this is about freedom of people like me to have pleasure.

Fine. Now can you get all your fellow-stoners to say so, rather than pretending they have disabling anxiety attacks in the absence of ganja, and getting doctors' notes as proof? I exempt those with genuine medical need, who certainly do exist, but we seem in agreement that MM is for the most part a way for perfectly healthy people to get their bud conveniently and (semi-)legally.

For my part, I'm probably the only person alive to gave gotten through nine years at UC/Berkeley without so much as eating a hash brownie, but I'd say that decriminalization seems a good idea.

You're at Home Depot and a fork-lift operator is driving down your aisle.

He doesn't see you.

And he's stoned.

I didn't hear about that incident. When did that happen? I'm surprised that HD didn't fire the dude or supervise him more closely, especially considering that they are a large publicly-traded company and therefore the perfect personal injury defendant.

So perhaps you can provide a link or something? I would love to read more.

Or perhaps you, Fen, think that it is appropriate for our country to sacrifice freedom based on fictional accounts of what could potentially happen to a single individual in a worse-case scenario?

Yes, you'd have the same grounds for a civil suit as someone who'd been harmed by a forklift operator who showed up to work drunk.

If marijuana is legalized one of two things happens in these cases (or both, perhaps, depending on how, if legalization happens, we separate medical grade marijuana from general-use marijuana).

If we categorize marijuana as a drug and it is regulated by the FDA, and use of this drug precludes people from operating heavy machinery, then both the company and the individual may be charged criminally and are definitely sitting ducks for a nasty civil suit.

If we skip a medical categorization and legalize weed for general/recreational use, then the same or similar laws governing alcohol use will apply and the individual may be charged with a criminal offense and both the company and individual are, again, open to a civil suit.

Which is why I like legalization -- not because I want people to smoke pot, but because I want them regulated just like alcohol drinkers and cigarette smokers are. And, if it's being marketed as a pharmaceutical, it should be regulated like a pharmaceutical. Time for marijuana proponents to put their money where their mouths are. If marijuana should be legalized for all the reasons its proponents claim it should be -- if smoking weed at the end of the day is no different than having a drink, or if smoking weed results in measurable medical solutions, then users will have to play by the same rules everyone else does.

I think it confuses GOP politics to have these one-issue people who are NOT going to vote for conservatives shaping the issues. These people are going to vote for Obama and other Democrats, but they are agitating for their issue amongst Republicans.

I'd like some clarity!

Wow, that's ignorant. Spend some time at reason.com and get a clue.

Really, you shouldn't be writing or voting until you work on that ignorance.

What candidate is actually serious about cutting government spending? Only one. Did you not pay attention to the Tea parties and why a good chunk of this country is pissed off?

OK, I admit it. I'm a card carrying Libertarian. I don't do drugs, including MJ; am a confirmed heterosexual; served 20 years in the US military.

Our federal government borrows roughly half of what it spends. I believe this is a ruinous practice both nationally and personally.

I believe any and every act or decision of 'government' does in some way limit the options and actions available to a citizen or citizens somewhere. If personal freedoms should be maximized, which I believe it should, then government should be minimized.

These are the overriding issues important to me.

Of the 'final four' providing us with national amusement these past weeks, only Ron Paul seems also to believe these things.

Republicans and Democrats disagree on how the federal government should solve all the problems facing citizens.

Libertarians understand that most problems facing citizens are problems which they should themselves solve.

Oh, and the drug war? It was lost before it started. Unless we have the national will to take any and everyone found with an 'illegal substance' out behind the barn and summarily execute them, the trade will not be stopped. Didn't much work with alcohol, did it?

I think it confuses GOP politics to have these one-issue people who are NOT going to vote for conservatives shaping the issues.

The problem with your argument, of course, is that there are plenty of conservatives who support drug legalization. What you mean is that the people in question would never vote for a conservative who wasn't pro-legalization.

What of it? There are plenty of GOPers who would never vote for a conservative who wasn't pro-war, too. You still let those people "shape the issues".

Althouse's comment to Dead Julius, after he gave a detailed description of his disorder and why he supports the use of medical marijuana, reduces the issue to "You're a Liberal, Right? ; it speaks volumes about our current desire to split complex issues into two simple camps that can be registered by a poll, but there is not much clarity in that direction.

While certainly drug consumers will naturally be opponents of the drug war, based on polling trends, it is clear more and more people are turning against the drug war. Current support for MJ legalization is about 50% nationwide. And from what we know about drug consumption rates, it's clear there are a lot of non-users on board for drug reform.

Since it's clear that there is politcal support for drug reform beyond just users, it seems likely that Ron Paul's support is not solely due to his support for drug reform.

Althouse impugns single-issue voters, thus declaring herself of a special class of intellectual who weighs the vast spectrum of issues and then decides. Basically this post is a way of signaling that "I am better then you".

But of course it would -- it would have the same effect on the cartels and the end of prohibition did on bootleggers.

Well, it would remove their primary source of funding, and make them a LOT weaker, and they would stop being significant suppliers of drugs as legal businesses moved into the market. But it'll take quite a while before they lose all their power.

Here in America we didn't fully recover from the Prohibition disaster until the mob prosecutions of the 1980s. Who knows how long it'll take places like Mexico to recover. One thing's for sure, though -- the recovery can't start until the war ends.

They don't exist. Real conservatives respect the law and would never break the law. I've got this on good authority from Freepers, among others. Conservatives that want a toke now and then have to call themselves libertarians.

Imagine the relative danger of the numerous bottles under your sink right at eye and hand level to our shorties. And for those who kid proof such things, did your parents? How will we get by with all this rock and roll and rampant skateboarding, and aren't the young lazy now days?

I've never consumed pot or any other illegal drug in any amount, did not consume any alcohol while underage, have never illegally used or abused a prescription drug, have never been drunk, and, just to round things out, have never used a tobacco product. For President, I have voted Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain.

And I'm a drug-legalizing libertarian who is planning to cast his primary vote for Ron Paul.

Kind of a dumb poll in that it asks for no first-hand knowledge or reveal of one's own beliefs. May as well ask "Are the people you dislike a bunch of tools?"

I'd say a good amount of liberals are social libertarian in other areas, such as abortion or gay marriage.

What about conservatives who just want a little toke now and then?

What about those of us who like big ones? :) I'll admit it, I partake. A lot. But I only do it at night, never at work, and I never drive or do any activity where I might harm myself or others. For the most part it's just replaced alcohol in my routine.

These people are going to vote for Obama and other Democrats, but they are agitating for their issue amongst Republicans. Aren't there a large number of anti-war Ronulans (who probably overlap with the pro-pot ones)?

there isn't a way to test for driving under the infuence, the policeman who stops me for erratic driving can't tell if the pot in my system is from last night or 15 mins ago. There has to be a way to test for that (in the workplace and on the road before it can be made legal.

Saliva tests (already on the marketplace) can detect if THC has been consumed in the past 4-6 hours. That seems like a reasonable amount of time. As it stands now, someone can still get charged with "drugged driving" even if they haven't poked any smot for past 30 days.

No particular dog in this fight--the only drugs I consume, legal, are cigars and alcohol--I do carry a small breathalyzer in my car to make sure I am below the legal limit when I do drink. I have zero problem with those who want to use MJ--While I suspect it may be harmful to their lungs, for the most part they get the munchies and get horny--which works to my benefit when I am dating a pot user. A bag of cheetos and a piece of ass--

Prohibiting MJ or prostitution, or any number of other social issues that arent real (IMO) issues is just plain stupid, and costs a lot of money.

Personally I had to giggle at the "He doesn't see you. And he's stoned". Like him being stoned makes his running over you EVEN WORSE.

You misunderstood. It means he's less likely to notice you in time, and even if he does he's less likely to react in time.

Again, you guys are missing the point - if he's drunk, we can prove it on the spot with a breathalyzer test. You can't do that with weed, not with enough precision to know if he is currently under the influence.

The other obvious flaw in the "zomg we can't test for weed" argument is that police don't need to test you for [insert name of mind-altering substance here] to arrest you for DUI. If you're driving erratically and appear intoxicated, that's sufficient cause for arrest.

The main reason breathalizers are so popular is that the .08 BAC limit is so absurdly low that most people aren't detectably impaired.

Rev--my little pocket breathaylzer has been informative--If I drink two martinis in two hours I am usually at .08--agree that.08 is ridculously low--and as you and others have pointed out impairment is a function of how you drive, not how much you have consumed.

You misunderstood. It means he's less likely to notice you in time, and even if he does he's less likely to react in time.

I understood, I was just making fun of the bombastic "Reefer Madness" delivery.

That being said, the idea of being run over by a stoned forklift operator at Home Depot is still pretty funny. In your mind you envision a Home Depot worker veering up and down the aisles, with his boss looking on anxiously saying "oh, if only I could *prove* he was high". Like "driving like a dumbass" isn't grounds for termination in and of itself. :)

I voted sort of high, I think. 20% to 50%, except I was thinking really close to 20%.

I don't think that Paulites are about the drugs though. I figure they're mostly about the Imperialism and then general personal freedom (like drugs) and maybe economics a far third, but I may be unfair saying that.

I suppose there are a few "legal drugs" single issue liberal spectrum libertarians, but there are a few "taxes are unconstitutional" sorts, too.

Mostly legalizing drugs gets brought up so often because it's an easy example to understand. Here's this "bad" thing (I'm not just talking legal pot, but other drugs as well) and you think it should be legal. Explain that.

Because it gets to the significant difference in assumptions between the libertarian or objectivist theory of what government is for and nearly everyone else. This is not a case of just being somewhere toward one end on a continuum between big nanny state and small government liberty. It's not an argument about the size of the State. It's an argument about the purpose of the State.

Because it gets to the significant difference in assumptions between the libertarian or objectivist theory of what government is for and nearly everyone else

Ron Paul's reason for being against the war on drugs is not the same reason libertarians have for being against the war on drugs.

Libertarians are against the war on drugs because we think it is no business of the government's what people do with their own bodies. Paul's argument, on the other hand, is a pragmatic and *conservative* argument: the war on drugs has never worked, will never work, is enormously expensive, and makes things worse. It is the same argument conservatives correctly used against Johnson's "war on poverty".

So Paul's argument is neither about the size of the state nor the purpose of the state, unless "the government should not spend hundreds of billions of dollars to increase crime and decrease average lifespan" counts. :)

My brother in-law became consumed by Meth. So much so he threatened me and my children. Should my children be required to pay money to protect against this madman? Should I be coerced by this madman? In either way, there is coercion occurring. The question I pose to you, is which coercion is lesser, that posed to innocents due to their drug usage, or the drug laws disallowing their use?

My brother in-law became consumed by Meth. So much so he threatened me and my children.

I'm sorry to hear that you've had that experience.

But I have to ask -- did you notice the war on drugs did precisely fuck-all to protect you and your family from drug abusers?

Despite the nation-wide crackdown on meth (which prevents normal people from so much as buying a packet of allergy medicine without being grilled and asked for ID), despite the draconian penalties for making and selling it, despite the constant gang warfare for control of the market... your brother in law had no trouble at all getting access to enough drugs to develop a nasty addiction.

Your experience is a perfect example of what an expensive waste of money and human lives the war on drugs is.

"I figure they're mostly about the Imperialism and then general personal freedom (like drugs) and maybe economics a far third, but I may be unfair saying that."

Economics FAR third? This is deeply uninformed. When Paul announces to a crowd "We are all Austrians now," (to thundering applause) he is not talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger. I would wager that your typical Paul supporter is far and away more informed about economics and monetary policy than your typical Romney or Gringrich supporter who does not know Hayek from a hole in the ground. In fact, I would bet that if you polled the typical Newt or Mitt supporter, maybe 5-20% of them have any CLUE what Paul even means when he refers to Austrians.

My observation is that people see in Paul what they NEED to see in him in order to clumsily try to marginalize him.

If you ask a lefty, they will tell you that Paul really only cares about laissez-faire policies and ending the War on Drugs and Wars on Other People is just air filler.

The left and the right have to marginalize Paul because he shines a spotlight on their own hypocrisy. Paul talks about small government...and he MEANS it.

The left has to try to marginalize Paul because he talks about civil liberties...and he MEANS it.

DJ, I assume you have already tried booze, since it is legal. In the last two years I have developed hand tremors. I don't have them in the morning early. If I have any papers to sign, I sign them then. As it draws near lunch time, my hands shake so that, as you say, I cannot hold a glass of water. At lunch I have two glasses of wine and the tremor goes away. Later it comes back until dinner time when I have more wine and then it goes away again. Starts over again the next day.

You do not need to be a libertarian to want your mary jane, liberals are just fine with sane drug laws. It would be better to say libertarians are just conservatives who want to get high on something besides guns and jesus